An International Guide to
Patent Case Management for Judges

Full guide

Download full guide Download current chapter
WIPO Translate
Google Translate

7.6.4 Provisional measures (preliminary injunction against patent infringement)

Article 23(2) of the Civil Provisional Remedies Act provides for a provisional disposition (preliminary injunction) to prohibit the supply of goods or services that infringe a patent right, in addition to a permanent injunction issued in an infringement action based on the merits.237 Article 23(2) provides that a preliminary injunction may be issued “when such status is necessary in order to avoid any substantial damage or imminent danger that would occur to” the patentee with respect to “the relationship of rights in dispute.”

If a patentee is successful in an infringement action on the merits, the court will permit the patentee to exercise the right to:

  • stop the infringing activities;238
  • demand the disposal of infringing products;239
  • demand compensation for damages;240 and
  • demand measures to restore the patentee’s reputation.241

However, in the case of a preliminary injunction against patent infringement, only the following remedies are permitted:

  • an injunction against the infringing activities; and
  • the retention of the infringing products by the court enforcement officer for the purpose of ensuring the disposal of the infringing products upon obtaining a final judgment.242

Article 24 of the Civil Provisional Remedies Act provides the following:

In order to achieve the objective of a petition for an order of provisional disposition, the court may issue a disposition ordering the [respondent (alleged infringer)] to take or prohibit from taking certain actions, ordering the [respondent] to tender performance, or causing the object to be placed in the custody of a custodian, or issue any other necessary disposition.

The case for a preliminary injunction may be filed at the same time as the main action. When the same counsel represents each party in both matters, the case for a preliminary injunction and the main case will often be considered by the court at the same time.

7.6.4.1 Requirements for a preliminary injunction order

The requirements for a preliminary injunction are a likelihood of success on the merits and the necessity to preserve the patentee’s position pending the final determination. Article 13(1) of the Civil Provisional Remedies Act provides: “A petition for an order for a provisional remedy must clarify the purpose thereof and the rights or relationship of rights that must be preserved and the necessity of preserving it.”

To show that there is a likelihood of success on the merits, it is necessary to demonstrate that a patent right is infringed – that is, that the other party’s goods or services fall within the technical scope of the patented invention. The respondent (alleged infringer) may deny this by showing that the right should be invalidated in a trial for invalidation before the JPO or that the right is not infringed.243

The necessity of the preliminary injunction must be established by prima facie evidence that shows serious damage or imminent danger to the petitioner (patentee).

7.6.4.2 Proof in a preliminary injunction case

The proof required for a preliminary injunction is a prima facie case. Article 13(2) of the Civil Provisional Remedies Act provides that a prima facie case must show “the right or the relationship of rights to be preserved and the necessity to preserve it.” Prima facie evidence is evidence that can be assessed immediately by the court.244 Documentary evidence is generally provided, and hearing of a witness who is not present in court is not permitted. A court will accept prima facie evidence that is above factual doubt.

The proof required in an action on the merits is “certainty beyond a reasonable doubt.” The burden of proof is lower for a prima facie case. However, in practice, the proof required for a preliminary injunction is often closer to that required in an action on the merits, particularly when the impact on the respondent (alleged infringer) will be significant and if the possibility of the preliminary injunction being suspended is low.

7.6.4.3 Proceedings of preliminary injunction cases

The Tokyo District Court and the Osaka District Court have jurisdiction over preliminary injunction cases.245 In principle, the court deciding a preliminary injunction case must hold oral proceedings or a hearing date at which the respondent (alleged infringer) may be present. However, Article 23(4) of the Civil Provisional Remedies Act provides that this does not apply when the objective of the petition for an order of preliminary injunction cannot be achieved if such proceedings are held. The time required for a hearing depends on the complexity of the case, but it usually takes several months from the filing of the petition to the handing down of the decision if the case involves issues of infringement or invalidity.

7.6.4.4 Preliminary injunction cases and necessity of security deposit

A respondent (alleged infringer) may incur damage if a preliminary injunction is incorrectly issued. Therefore, it is usual for a court to require a security deposit when issuing a preliminary injunction. Under the Civil Provisional Remedies Act, whether a security deposit is required is left to the discretion of the court. Article 14(1) of the Civil Provisional Remedies Act provides the following:

An order for a provisional remedy may be issued while requiring provision of security or requiring provision of security within a certain period of time that is found to be reasonable as a condition for implementing the execution of the provisional remedy, or not requiring the provision of security.

The court determines the amount of the security deposit after reviewing materials submitted by the parties and taking various circumstances into account. The amount of the security deposit may be high if the sales generated by the alleged infringing goods or services are large. In addition, the security deposit will not be refunded until the dispute is resolved.

7.6.4.5 Execution of an order for a preliminary injunction

A permanent injunction is not enforceable until a declaration allowing the execution is issued or a judgment becomes final and binding. Conversely, a preliminary injunction order can be executed immediately.

A preliminary injunction is a provisional disposition prohibiting the respondent from performing an action (an alleged infringement) that comes into effect when a preliminary injunction order is served on the respondent (the alleged infringer). When a respondent is in violation of a preliminary injunction, the petitioner (patentee) can seek enforcement by filing a petition for substitute execution or indirect compulsory execution with the execution court based on an authenticated copy of the preliminary injunction order.246

To enforce an indirect compulsory execution, a petitioner must prove that the respondent is likely to breach their obligation not to act, but it is not necessary to prove that the respondent is actually in breach of their obligation not to act.247

A preliminary injunction order must be executed within two weeks from the day on which the preliminary injunction order is served on the respondent.248

7.6.4.6 Appeal against a preliminary injunction case

If a petition for a preliminary injunction order is dismissed, the petitioner (the patentee) may file an immediate appeal within two weeks from the day on which it is notified of the decision.249 When a preliminary injunction order is issued, the respondent (the alleged infringer) may file an objection to the preliminary injunction with the court that issued the order.250

An objection to a preliminary injunction order establishes a forum for reassessing the right to be preserved and the necessity of preservation. Although a petition for the stay of the execution of a preliminary injunction may be filed at the same time as an objection to a preliminary injunction order, it is practically impossible to obtain a stay of the execution of a preliminary injunction order. This is because a prima facie case is required to demonstrate the grounds for revocation of the order, and the execution of the preliminary injunction is likely to cause damage for which compensation cannot be made.251 Therefore, the hurdle for seeking a stay is high.

The respondent may file a petition for an order against the petitioner to file a suit on the merits. If the petitioner does not file a suit on the merits despite the issuance of the order, the respondent may file a petition for revocation of the preliminary injunction. Article 37 of the Civil Provisional Remedies Act provides:

  1. (1) At the petition of the [respondent], the court that issued the order for a provisional remedy must order the [petitioner] to, within a certain period of time that it finds to be reasonable, file an action on the merits and submit a document certifying such filing, or, if the [petitioner] has already filed an action on the merits, to submit a document certifying that such action is pending before a court.
  2. (2) The period referred to in the preceding paragraph must be two weeks or more.
  3. (3) The court must revoke the order for a provisional remedy at the petition of the [respondent] if the [petitioner] fails to submit the document set forth in paragraph (1) within the period set forth in said paragraph.
7.6.4.7 Claim for damages against an erroneous order for a preliminary injunction

If, after a preliminary injunction order against infringement has been issued, it becomes clear in a judgment on the merits – as a result of a successful invalidity defense or a non-infringement argument – that there is no right to be preserved, and the judgment becomes final and binding, the petitioner (the patentee) who has executed the preliminary injunction order is liable to compensate the respondent for damage suffered as a result of the execution of the preliminary injunction if the petitioner was willful or negligent when enforcing the illegal preliminary injunction. Unless there are special circumstances, it is generally presumed that the petitioner was negligent when executing an illegal preliminary injunction.252